Pictorial depth: Intensity and aesthetic surface [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Axiomathes 15 (1):1-28 (2005)
Philosophers seldom ask questions regarding how certain phenomena occur, because such questions tend to be the province of the sciences or of technology. However, the question how pictures have depth requires philosophical reflection because it takes place on the surface of pictorial objects and involves both physical and phenomenal, i.e. aesthetic, features of those surfaces. This essay examines how pictures have depth by first separating the aesthetic question from interpretive considerations, and thereby refining the question how pictures have depth. Next it explicates two sorts of conceptual tools required to understand the question: several complex concepts needed to understand surfaces, and the concept of intensity. These are then used to understand how pictures can have depth by showing how intensities produce both an aesthetic surface and depth within it.
|Keywords||aesthesis depth intensity surfaces ontology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Anthony J. Steinbock (1987). Merleau-Ponty's Concept of Depth. Philosophy Today 31 (4):336-351.
Paul Richter (1969). Flat Surfaces and Pictorial Depth. British Journal of Aesthetics 9 (3):231-245.
M. Pettersson (2011). Seeing What Is Not There: Pictorial Experience, Imagination and Non-Localization. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (3):279-294.
Holger Otten (2008). Matisse's La Danse: On the Semantics of the Surface in Modern Painting. Estetika 45 (2):173-183.
Robert Hopkins (2000). Touching Pictures. British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (1):149-167.
Helen Fielding (1996). Grounding Agency in Depth: The Implications of Merleau-Ponty's Thought for the Politics of Feminism. [REVIEW] Human Studies 19 (2):175-184.
Richard Shusterman (2002). Surface and Depth: Dialectics of Criticism and Culture. Cornell University Press.
Alon Chasid (2004). Why the Pictorial Relation is Not Reference. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (3):226-247.
Bence Nanay (2005). Is Twofoldness Necessary for Representational Seeing? British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):248-257.
Boyd Millar (2006). The Conflicted Character of Picture Perception. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64 (4):471–477.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #64,741 of 1,011,615 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,011,615 )
How can I increase my downloads?